[removed]

[removed]

Well Camus can do, but Satre is smarter

The history of the libertarian left is just one big "told you so" to the authoritarians

I'm also curious if you are fluent in classical Arabic. Because I have heard Muslims argue that if you study the entire Quran in its original language that its insurmountable beauty and truth will overwhelm you and you will have no doubt of the truth of Islam.

I'm not going to bother exploring that path. Life is short, and I don't care to spend years on what may be (I suspect is almost certainly) a dead end. How about you? Are you going to shut down that potential ultimate truth without full explorarion? You might be forfeiting infinite reward. What is a decade of your life in comparison?

Now, what if the time commitment instead of years is one year? Or one month. Or one week. Or one day. Or one hour. Or one minute. I don't have a problem letting people decide for themselves how much of their limited time they want to spend on such matters.

(I kind of love this argument for Islam because of its sheer audacity. Imagine spending a decade getting to the point where you can personally examine the claim and being like, yeah, still not convinced.)

It costs them nothing to convey a popular message while conceding nothing beyond words. Because that’s all it is. Words. They haven’t been “conquered” any more than I’ve conquered my bank when they tell me they appreciate my business.

Some within the company my see it as a cynical opportunity to garner good PR. Others may truly believe the message. The fact is the reasoning is wholly immaterial as it has no actual impact on real world outcomes either way.

The same goes for politicians. Plenty of them mouth the pieties expected by their base, while taking actions diametrically opposed to those pieties. Only a rube takes their words at face value.

[removed]

It's difficult to quantify, but the core point ia that despite these cultural and linguistic differences we're relatively the same. It's when really different types of minds and entities are introduced that huge deviations from the norm become..the norm.

This augmentation ia underway already in a soft way,.. phones and technology we use every day. I work in AI myself and I expect things to rapidly accelerate from here on out.

Although I think there will be lots of worldwide access to information...something that is getting better every day.. poverty levels too.. people worst off will likely to remain worst off.

The details are very hard to predict though. I personally am sure this intersubjectivity collapse must happen because both possibly mind design space is large as we see in the animal kingdom and we're just not equipped as a society to deal with it.

I even speculate that some of this new communication barriers can't be overcome for the same reason as me not being able to check inside your head ans bkdy to figure out your internal states.

What's the alternative? I'm happy to consider it. I'm exploring. Also, I'm kind of a spooky naturalist so you might be surprised what I would go along with.

Sorry to be dismissive but I've examined a lot of claims so will be pretty surprised if you have something new.

Also, one thing I value is present experience. It has nothing to do with necessarily lasting into the future. Do you?

Feel free to continue in private message if you prefer. I'm enjoying the conversation. I think the conversation has value even if our memories are erased and Reddit disappears.

"It is analogous because after you die your memories are gone."

I'm confused- I agree that your memories are gone after you die. That is why it is not analogous to the meal, since you can at least look back and remember had a delicious meal.

"On your last question, of course there is still value if you enjoy writing."

How so? You wouldn't remember it nor would you have anything left of it. So where's the value after it's gone? If the value is only temporary, then its true that only eternal things retain value.

"Your position seems to be that, for example, my personal experience of holding my child or my wife has no value but only the illusion of value."

On naturalism, yes...

"My position is that is absurd. I know it has value."

I agree with you! Of course it has meaning and value- as a theist, I affirm that deeply. I'm saying that such a claim would be incompatible with naturalism. This is what I mean when I say naturalism just doesn't seem to match what is obviously true: things like loving my family and holding my newborn has intrinsic moral worth.

"But even if there is not, who cares? I care about holding and loving my wife way, way more than I care about trying to justify my values as being objective."

The reasons to care are what I've tried to explain above: if these things appear to be of worth to you, as they are to me, and life is worth living, then that gives one motivation to do everything one can to disprove a worldview that tries to say that it's not true and we will lose everything we love. On a purely personal note, I believe I have done this for myself, and its had a more profound effect on my life than anything else. I can't help but want others to at least look that direction, even if you disagree with my own views.

"If you want to put something on the table, I can readily explain to you why you also have no basis to claim an ultimate objective purpose."

Again, I don't need to provide an alternative to conclude things about the things naturalism entails. It could be true or it could be false- either way, we should be unhappy about what it entails.

Serious question: why are you quick to defend yourself from alternatives? Why not welcome alternatives and seek them out with open arms? Unless you are omniscient and know for certain that there is no possible alternative to naturalism, then there's room to be open to alternatives.

This article continues the ancient tradition of cancel culture, attempting to discredit the great minds of the past and present for extremist political motivations in the present and future. Beware ideological analysis and remain critical of both sides of any "coin", and make sure to inspect the sides of the coin for dents. Remain vigilant and aware, and know that every narrative is a rough and tumbling stone.

agreed, to many the communist philosophy was attractive as an alternative to capitalism, the implementation not so much. Camus had the insight to figure out what might happen to collectivism under authority. and he was right.

There's another possibility, which is that acquiescence by the private corporation or the cultural mainstream simply represents actual political success. Superficial expression of the "ideas and images" is a form of tribute paid to a victorious political power. Like the banners of subjugated peoples paraded by imperial conquerers.

Yes, like the conquered imperial subject, the restive corporation may remain forever ready to abandon its display of subordination at the first opportunity, its acquiescence is never wholly sincere... but so what? In a sense, all that means is that regular display rituals are proof to an even greater degree of the dynamism of the emerging victorious political force. It commands this power each time anew.

Thesis: People can be fine with naturalism because it is the best available option.

The thesis above is what you must disprove to move the needle at all. Saying that you think naturalism is terrible is irrelevant if the other options are worse.

As a shareholder with reporting requirements for multiple corporations, I resent the insinuation that nothing moral prevails in the decision making process of such an entity. Corporations are like countries - a bit of legal fiction with, perhaps, sane, honourable governance, or else maybe with a madman at the helm. I wouldn't toss that at the feet of the idea of the Nation State, I'd be inclined to indict the leader in question.

It is analogous because after you die your memories are gone.

On your last question, of course there is still value if you enjoy writing.

Your position seems to be that, for example, my personal experience of holding my child or my wife has no value but only the illusion of value. My position is that is absurd. I know it has value. You can throw up as many arguments as you want, and it does zero to diminish the value those things have to me. The heat death of the universe doesn't effect the value one iota.

You can say this is just subjective. I'm not sure because there are objective biological underpinnings to pain and pleasure etc. But even if there is not, who cares? I care about holding and loving my wife way, way more than I care about trying to justify my values as being objective.

Besides, you are offering no alternative at all. So even if naturalism is lacking, there is no other option on the table in this discussion. If you want to put something on the table, I can readily explain to you why you also have no basis to claim an ultimate objective purpose.

Disagree. Good and evil are real, so are right and wrong. And all creatures know what they are insofar as they need to. Caring about whether an action, lack of action, or thought is right/wrong/good/evil is entirely different. A creature can and quite often does take action in its self interest knowing that it is wrong and simply does not care.

To your point: "You're avoiding talking about theism, but your objections to naturalism are irrelevant if you can't establish a better alternative."

I am pointing out what naturalism entails- these are not arguments against the veracity of naturalism. I don't need to provide an alternative to naturalism to talk about why we should be dissatisfied with it. Theism isn't the only possible alternative to naturalism (though I personally find it the best alternative myself). The point stands that if someone sees naturalism for what it is (horrible) then they should be motivated to seek to disprove it.

"And I vehemently disagree that I lack "real purpose, morality, and human value." It's just rediculous and kind of insulting from my perspective."

Why do you find it insulting? I certainly don't intend it that way, and I have no desire to attack you- I'm here to discuss ideas with you. In either case, it really does seem to me to be what naturalism entails, hence why I think it's a terrible worldview to sit satisfied with!

About what I wrote above- where do you base such things like purpose/meaning/human value if not in humans? Like I said, to make humankind the foundation for these things amounts to expressing opinions about ourselves, and is not any different than a self-imposed illusion. So what other option is there?

"If I take you to a nice restaurant, you should enjoy the meal rather than fretting that you will be hungry again tomorrow or crying about the eventual heat death of the universe."

I don't think this is analogous, since at least the memory of the meal has lasting value. Do you think there's any value to be had writing a lengthy autobiography if the manuscript were to be immediately thrown away upon finishing it and your memory were to be wipes of its contents?

My primary objection to theism is that it doesn't provide explanatory value over naturalism. You can pose a thousand questions that naturalism cannot answer, and it does nothing to move the needle if you can't establish a better alternative.

>We ought to do things that maintain our biological needs, because they are innate to our existence. (due to evolution).

But, why should that be the standard, and not something else? Why should I be held to what is innate to "our existence," and not just my own pleasure, or what is innate to the existence of squirrels, or iron? Ultimately, all moral systems/claims rely on bare axioms, but there is no reason why one must accept any given axiom; they are essentially arbitrary. Therefore, the moral system which relies on them is, essentially, arbitrary.

Put a different way: while the moral system might rely on objective realities in its formulation, such as basic biological needs, the decision to consider those realities as the basis of right and wrong is ultimately an arbitrary choice. We might, all of us, inherently value something, but that doesn't make it right.

You're avoiding talking about theism, but your objections to naturalism are irrelevant if you can't establish a better alternative.

And I vehemently disagree that I lack "real purpose, morality, and human value." It's just rediculous and kind of insulting from my perspective.

Your perspective seems to be that only eternal things have value. I think that's just entirely wrong. If I take you to a nice restaurant, you should enjoy the meal rather than fretting that you will be hungry again tomorrow or crying about the eventual heat death of the universe.

Hahah I appreciate the remarks. I don't mind being downvoted, but I do wish they allowed only upvotes. That way if someone disagreed with a post they would be compelled to write out why they disagree instead of clicking merely one button. It would be a good way of fostering the discussion.

Consistently, across multiple comments, this guy's main point is "shit's complicated yo, some nuance is warranted, even in the case of corporate decision making"... no personal attacks, no whataboutism, etc. Regardless, he's getting downvoted like an unwelcome troll. In a philosophy sub. Fuck.

The more and more I dive into the subconscious self the more confused I get.

We are beings consisting of trillions of microorganisms that work hard to maintain the physical us. There is far greater unknowns going on inside with endless communication and cooperation that "we" have next to no control over. I understand I'm limited in my knowledge through science, but I enjoy trying to learn all I can on the biological side. I find myself going down a lot of funky paths thinking about life in general.

I am probably diving a little too deep with the above, but I can't help but wonder and think if there is more going on than we could ever comprehend with far greater implications on the self.

Anyway, I've had a really pleasurable time digging into why I do a lot of things and I enjoy the discoveries. It's fun to slow down common actions and think about them - why I do it, is there a better way, did I knowingly choose the best way or was it by chance, etc.

If you have anything else you want to dive into please feel free to keep it going.

Interesting theory and blog article. I am wondering about the epistemological applications of your theory.

This is all well and good for English speakers but what about the innumerable languages out there particularly only 1 or bilingual speakers and how do you think they’ll play a part in shaping their speakers. Do you envision a significant difference between Portuguese, German, and Mandarin speakers (for e.g.) as they have different linguistic understandings, cultural value sets, and levels of communication/comprehension.

Additionally, to what extent do you think that this ‘augmentation’ will occur across global populations. Presumably the west and more developed countries will adopt and change far sooner than lower developed countries. How will that affect what you’re supposing?